Talk:Roundup (issue tracker)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roundup (issue tracker) 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

Personally[edit]

Personally I found this web page valuable as it provides a short and concise summary of the design features of Roundup. I've added links to the issue tracker comparison page (and cross-referenced from there).

Hgibson 06:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this page be considered as advertisement. Comparing it to:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercurial_(software)

and

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software)

tow other popular open source products, I can see no big difference in style or content.

217.24.10.200 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my voice to those requesting this page be retained - the language might not be perfect, but the information is useful, and all articles have to start somewhere. If we slavishly delete every article that doesn't immediately comply with ideals, we risk discouraging casual authors, and the wikipedia will suffer. Many good articles started life in a worse state than this one. Hacknsplat 01:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement? Reasons, please![edit]

I'd like to know, what makes “an editor” think this article is an advertisement? Any arguments I have missed? --TobiasHerp 11:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes for {{Advert}}: "Pages that promote commercial products or services"

Since Roundup (issue tracker) is not a commercial product (but usable for free), the article by definition can't be an advertisement. --TobiasHerp 15:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that description of the message appears to be different from what I intended; thanks for pointing this out to me. I'll try to find a more appropriate box for this. The message box states "the article is written like an advertisement", which implies that it's a problem with the presentation alone, not the fact that its subject is a commercial product.

In any case, I tagged this article because the lead section includes phrases such as "highly customizable" and "nearly complete", which are non-neutral statements and do not attribute the statement to a source (e.g., what advertisements generally do). Refer to describing points of view for how points of view should be conveyed. The rest of the article appears to be OK in this respect (except, of course, the other occurrence of "highly customizable", which should just be removed). -- intgr 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"highly customizable": If you compare the minimal to the classic template, you'll see how customizable it is (I described in which way this is done). You'll hardly find an issue tracker nearly so (the user class being the only really required one, supporting one or more topic classes named 'issue' (the default), 'bug', 'topic', 'ticket', 'foo' or any other letter-based name, and being likewise flexible concerning the attributes). Is this highly customizable enough? (I didn't use perfectly nor totally, because this would have been wrong) You are invited to find a better wording.

"nearly complete" (mail interface): it is possible to work with roundup without using any other interface at all, including creation and modification of issues (not only submitting comments but change status, for an example). It is not (yet?) possible to submit search requests via mail and receive an answer, but you could use the search capabilities of the mail client for this. Nearly complete enough?

BTW, see: Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute --Tobias 13:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not even claiming that Roundup doesn't have these features, so your points are irrelevant here. I am saying that the given statements are not neutral in nature. Someone might be arguing that Roundup is less customizable than their favorite bug tracker X; others may claim that the mail interface is entirely complete — these are opinions, not facts. Wikipedia should not contain opinions without attributing them to a source.

WP:NPOV summarizes this as "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves"

The describing points of view page is a good guide for how neutrally convey such information. -- intgr 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could (for a change) help by suggesting better (neutral) wordings instead; I'm not a native english speaker, and I have no better idea.

"Someone might be arguing ..." So what? I don't claim Roundup to be the only highly customizable tracker.

"... may claim that the mail interface is entirely complete — these are opinions, not facts". Wrong. I'll try a definition: a complete interface to a system provides all features the system provides, e.g. creation, change and query of issues (this could be fixed on a tracker comparison page). I didn't claim the interface to be totally complete, for this reason. --Tobias 17:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nearly complete mail interface has been replaced by better wording, and highly customizable is wrapped in "designed to be" (and the 2nd occurence replaced), I removed the {{advert}} tag. Whoever thinks there are still non-neutral wordings may improve them rather than simply re-adding the tag. --Tobias 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable?![edit]

See Wikipedia:Notability, The notability criterion, for a start. We should be able to collect a bunch of places in the web where Roundup is mentioned easily, e.g. the CallForTrackers at the Python wiki page or even at the trac homepage. A web search for "Roundup bugtracker" yields lots of links; I noticed the german version of the article has been copied to [1] ;-) --TobiasHerp 15:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's were we should start. The article needs to establish its notability by pointing out multiple, independent, non-trivial and reliable sources on the subject of the article. Wikis are not generally reliable sources, and often the article authors are not independent of the subject. Also, notability is not popularity; the number of search results does not help establish notability.

Thanks for bringing these issues up on the talk page, rather than removing the templates (which people very often tend to do). Happy editing! -- intgr 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have removed the templates, since there was nothing on the talk page to substantiate them. But of course I'd prefer you to do this.

The contents can be verified using the linked resources, downloading the tracker for free and toying with the demo.

Doing a quick web scan, I found

Roundup mentioned in the overview pages at ohloh.net, swik.net
Roundup hosting is offered by Upfront Systems (who offered to host the Python bugtracker for free; there may be more)
usage of Roundup (or other trackers) was discussed here ("Best Bug Tracker on Zope platform?", 2005)
apparently, Roundup is used as the GnuPG bugtracker (the topic attribute is part of Roundup's classic template)
a presentation about Roundup and its possible uses by Ralf Schlatterbeck (german)

Even if there might not be another article around elsewhere, it must be possible for wikipedia to be the first encyclopedia to contain one for a perfectly notable piece of software; otherwise the notability criteria would be faulty. It would be nice if you could render more precisely which kind of ressources you'd consider significant. --Tobias 11:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe I should have removed the templates, since there was nothing on the talk page to substantiate them."

I firmly believe that the notability tag stands by itself. Whether or not you think the "advert" tag was justified, it is a fact that the article did not establish the notability of its subject. The tag clearly links to the notability guideline and states "[...] please expand the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject."

Once again, you are confusing notability with popularity, and linking to pages that are irrelevant to the issue.

The primary notability criterion is: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (further explanation at WP:N)

In particular, please refer to WP:RS (reliable sources) and WP:IS (independent sources). The rationale for requiring a level of notability section might help you understand why this is important.

If notability cannot be established for now, the article may stand with the tag until such sources are available. You should not be worried about deletion as long as the content of the article is not contested. -- intgr 16:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I firmly believe that the notability tag stands by itself". No, it doesn't; its criteria are subject to lively discussion. And it suggests the article to be merged or deleted (what do you mean by "contested"?), so I regard it (at least) rude to use it without any comment at the talk page.

As for the primary notability criterion: "This is the primary, but not the sole criterion, so the converse is not necessarily true. Alternative tests are used in some cases to establish notability." There are several category-specific definitions; unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be one for software projects yet. What makes you think your bureaucratic single-criterion definition is suitable for software? --Tobias 18:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very interested in arguing with you here, and your attitude has certainly changed from constructive to evasive. If you cannot establish notability, by all means, you are not obliged to do it. My intention is to improve Wikipedia by enforcing established standards, not to make your life here more difficult. I realize that this is a thankless task, but someone needs to do it. And sorry for a long-winded response, I am trying to address your points exhaustively. So perhaps I am indeed a Vogon at heart. Oh well, there goes the Earth. :)

(From your other comment) "You could (for a change) help by suggesting better (neutral) wordings instead"

If I had the time to fix an article every time I saw a bad one, I really would. I am currently restricting myself to explaining the guidelines/policies to users who request so or misunderstand them.

"its criteria are subject to lively discussion."

Whether the guideline is under discussion is irrelevant — it is a guideline as long as it says it's a guideline.

"there doesn't seem to be one for software projects yet"

There used to be a proposal, but it was rejected, so the primary one is the only one in effect for now.

"What makes you think your bureaucratic single-criterion definition is suitable for software?"

First, it is not "my" criterion. Secondly, the primary criterion was not chosen arbitrarily, but to set the threshold of inclusion to a level where satisfying other policies would be possible; these policies apply universally. The rationale for requiring a level of notability should address your point adequately:

In order to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

"And it suggests the article to be merged or deleted"

Only if notability cannot be established. Even if someone does delete/merge, the changes could be undone later when you have evidence of notability.

"(what do you mean by "contested"?)"

I mean that articles are not deleted or merged just for the purpose of doing those tasks, but when an there is a reason to do them. I cannot see a reason to delete or merge this article.

"so I regard it (at least) rude to use it without any comment at the talk page."

Well, you seem to have correctly inferred the meaning of this tag: that (1) notability needs to be established, or (2) the article should be merged/deleted; I am currently merely explaining what is said in the relevant policies and guidelines (which are linked from the template itself). What further explanation would I put on the talk page? Ideally, people would read guidelines on their own, but I can see that some guidance is needed, as they are not quite straightforward to grok at first, but that depends on what kind of questions the people have. -- intgr 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your elaborate answer. There are clearly some topics we just won't agree on; it would be very interesting to hear more about the specialized criteria and why it was not accepted; without further knowledge about this discussion I won't blindly accept the general criteria to be useful for software projects (BTW, if you read it right, it says: "This is the primary, but not the sole criterion, so the converse is not necessarily true"). Which means, it is perfectly possible to have a notable article without the secondary sources you insist on.

What enraged me about the missing comment was: Yes, I could understand the meaning of the tags; but I didn't know exactly what you meant. Except in very clear cases (e.g. of advertising commercial products using superlatives over and over, and when google won't yield a single hit) IMNSHO every tagging must be accompanied by a note on the talk page. At the very top of the linked page: "Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". It is better to tag one article correctly and pointing out the reasons than to silently (and only possibly correctly) tag ten articles. --Tobias 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"IMNSHO every tagging must be accompanied by a note on the talk page."

If you are talking about the advert tag, then I agree and I will do so in the future. Please accept my apologies.

If you are talking about the notability tag: first, you are linking to a page that talks about NPOV disputes, not other tags. I can very well understand the need to justify NPOV tags, since NPOV disputes are typically much more complex, and depend on the phrasing and content of the article — and if there is no discussion on the talk page, there is technically no "dispute".

OTOH, whether an article cites any sources that help establish its notability is, I believe, an objective assessment. The only thing that a note on the talk page could explain is to re-state the template, the notability guideline and/or what are reliable/independent/published/secondary sources. The "reasons" that an article might be tagged for are explained on the guideline pages. If there is a better way to communicate these, then I would opt to improving the template itself, instead of adding such notices to talk pages. (And such re-usable notices are bound to turn into templates anyway. :)

"This is the primary, but not the sole criterion, so the converse is not necessarily true"

Well, can you point me to a subject-specific notability guideline that applies in this case? You said yourself that one doesn't exist, so I cannot really understand your argument. Naturally you cannot rely on unwritten guidelines.

"I won't blindly accept the general criteria to be useful for software projects"

I cannot see why software projects would be unique; they are very often researched, reviewed, awarded, etc like lots of other subjects; if a given piece of software isn't, then NPOV and verifiability cannot ultimately be established — thus they are "not notable" for an encyclopedia. Quoting the WP:NOR policy: "Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source."

But this is getting off topic, if you wish to debate the notability guideline itself, you should do so on Wikipedia talk:Notability; or you may propose another guideline for software (if you are planning to do so, I would suggest asking advice at WP:PUMP first). But as long as it is not accepted as a guideline, the notability tag on this article is justified, whether you personally agree with the notability guideline(s) or not. The whole point of guidelines and policies is to avoid debating the same questions over and over again.

"it would be very interesting to hear more about the specialized criteria and why it was not accepted"

Because it failed to reach a consensus; the particular wording of the guideline was considered too permissive and biased towards free software. You can read all about it at WP:SOFTWARE. -- intgr 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this helps the discussion, but Roundup is 'notable' in a colloquial sense because the original design won a $10,000 prize in the Software Carpentry competition (a fact that isn't even mentioned here!). That was 6 years ago, and the original site has gone, but you can read about that on archive.org - [2] that received coverage in the tech press at the time eg slashdot [3] O'Reilly [4]. Personally I'd agree that this is nowhere near the notability standard wikipedia sets though. The article goes into a lot of irrelevant detail too; the uniquely interesting thing about Roundup is nosy lists, which aren't even adequately explained; the rest of it is much the same as other tracking systems Bazzargh 13:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open source vs. free; customizablity level[edit]

Yes, it is open source; yes, it can be used for free (which is no necessarily the case for open source software). Ok, most will tend to assume an open source software to be available for free...

"Designed to be highly customizable" is fairly neutral, isn't it? Despite in my opinion it is a fact that it is highly customizable (never said there couldn't be another issue tracker equally or even more customizable, and this wording is doesn't imply anything like that either). "Designed to be customizable" is far too weak IMO; it definitely is customizable (and the article tells how). --Tobias 21:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the current formulation, thanks for improving it. -- intgr 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent References[edit]

Trac is referenced in Appendix B of the _Producing Open Source Software_ manual. [link removed]

-james. 24.249.157.103 14:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press release from ThoughtWorks about their Buildix Agile development platform: [link removed]

-james. 24.249.157.103 15:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The former is just a list of different issue trackers with short descriptions, and is probably not even a reliable soruce.

The second is some press release that doesn't even mention Roundup. How are these relevant? I have removed both links as their purpose appears to be mere spamming. -- intgr 19:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed notability tag again[edit]

I took the liberty of removing the notability tag again. The fact that a server operating system like Debian Linux ships Roundup on their DVD set generally indicates that a piece of server software is notable. Cheers, --unforg e ttableid | how's my driving? 02:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The primary notability criterion states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". As you can see, this has nothing to do with Debian or DVD sets. -- intgr [talk] 01:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]