Jump to content

Talk:PeaZip

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unreferenced tag status

[edit]

Unreferenced tag status: as soon as I noticed "unreferenced" tag I tried to publish links to independent, meaningful and verifiable sources about challangeable content in PeaZip article, as requested by "Citing sources" guidelines. Criteria: since this is English Wikipedia I gave priority to sources in English language, but without omitting meaningful and qualified sources in other languages, as in "Citing sources" guidelines, and not submitted links to any of my original works or program's descriptions, only ones written by independent editor and reviewers. Since this is the first time I publish a "References" section I'll be glad to know if the way I chose and published the reference sources is acceptable, and where should it be improved.

Current links (20:47, 24 March 2008) are:

links 1 and 2 points to articles on qualified and well known online sources about Free Software and Linux: Linux.com and LinuxUser.de;

links 3 and 4 points to articles (not download reviews) on mainstream download websites: Download.com and FreeDownloadsCenter.com;

links 5 and 6 points to articles on well known PC magazines that I think may be meaningful even if not in English language: Netzwelt and PC-Open;

links 7 to 11 points to editor's (not publisher-submitted) download reviews of well known download sites: Softpedia, Softonic (multilingual), CHIP Online and PortableApps;

links 12 and 13 points to authoritative compression benchmarks: Maximum Compression and Matt Mahoney's Large Text Benchmark on fit.edu; those links explain the choice of integrating support for PAQ/LPAQ (which are still experimental, cutting edge technologies) in PeaZip.

links 14 to 16 points to third party authors' webpages linking back to PeaZip project page: 7-Zip.org, FreeArc and Matt Mahoney's compression page on fit.edu; those links are about the claimed support for specific archive formats in PeaZip.

Please let me know if and when I can delete "Unreferenced" tag, or if more / different references are needed to be published. Thanks in advance for the attention! Giorgio Tani (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC) About one week is passed after I added references, IMHO I would keep "Unreferenced tag" for anoter week and then delete it if no utter feedback is given about this issue. Giorgio Tani (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel wording

[edit]

Let's not call adware by the less odious "software advertising" when it is in fact adware. This is a bit POV-pushy. Considering these attempts to soften the adware section are coming from an editor with rather exclusive contributions to PeaZip's article and articles related to file archiving, (all in regard to PeaZip itself, I should add) I think it's safe to assume this account belongs to the software's developer. That's all fine and well, but please consider WP:WEASEL more carefully. Thanks 98.86.118.243 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of the software and as you can see from the user name in "View history" I routinely update the page with newer releases and other information. I used the "software advertising" term instead of "adware" or "advertising-supported software" as the application does not runs ads by itself each time it is used, but it displays ads once during installation, performing once an ad for another software. If this distinction is not worthy of mentioning, I apologize. I've edited the section, now titled "Adware", to present what the bundled installer does in details, with links to official documentation. Same information (more in details, as how does AVG Security Toolbar works would be OT and out of the scope of this article about PeaZip) is provided on the official domain in the Partnership page that is linked in PeaZip's TOS page and in each download pages of bundled software (PeaZip for Windows and PeaZip for Windows 64 bit), before the link to the non-bundled packages. --Gtani (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ZIP / JAR / WAR

[edit]

A .war file is a specialized .jar file is a specialized .zip file. How can these three formats have different support levels? --♦ 19:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many formats use zip container to embed data, but often adds specialized fields or files (i.e. manifests), that would need to be updated accordingly to format specifications if the file is edited - which is out of the scope for a generic file archiver. Those files are consequently read-only supported (to allow inspection and extraction of the content) unless willingly renamed as .zip files so they can be treated like plain archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtani (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close connection tag status

[edit]

Hello, I'm the author of the application. I contribute often to the application's page, but lately usually just to update the release number/date. Gtani —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for disclosing, but this article still needs cleanup and independent sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback - and please feel free to contribute with cleanup of the sections you feel needs more attention.
About notability and verifiability, with few exceptions I have not contributed much to the page after initial writing (with a different user name I no longer use due the spam I received back then) so I see now many of the external links to third party articles and reviews are now obsolete or missing, which is my fault for not having updated them.
Also about verifiability, it is an Open Source software so features are both easily verifiable not only from the software itself, but can also be verified from sources' scrutiny, which is one of the main points in releasing software projects as Open Source.
About close connection, as mentioned when I started this talk page section in November 2020, most of my edits lately were just for updating release number / date (as in Comparison of file archivers page).
What I'm going to do now: if I correctly interpreted Wikipedia guidelines for the tags you added, I'll edit the page adding reference links to third party sources of information similarly to what I did back in 2008 when the page received the unreferenced tag status, discussed at the top of this page.Gtani (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These must be reliable sources, portals such as Download.com, Softpedia, or self published blog postings will not help to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the assistance, I'm starting updating the reference links following the RS guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtani (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to clear redundant and dead links (some were indeed just moved, as the one on linux.com and 7-zip.org), and to remove least significant ones, no offense intended to reviewers which took time to write about the software, but RS guidelines are clear.

So far most notable edits, IMHO, are:

corrected a link from 7-Zip website (wrongly marked as dead) crediting PeaZip for supporting .7z format, I think it is relevant as 7-Zip is one of the most notable applications of this type;

linked Facebook's own GitHub page for Zstandard compression project (used by Facebook to compress its traffic and spare bandwidth resources) lead and managed by Yann Collet, crediting PeaZip for supporting Zstandard compression;

linked Microsoft's own GitHub page for winget project, with manifests for supporting PeaZip installation through Windows Package Manager (manifests are managed and approved by Microsoft);

linked license verification for PeaZip on Free Software Foundation "Free Software Directory", the page itself may not be authoritative being a Wiki entry, but the license verification is made by FSF reviewers, so that part unlike the rest of the Wiki entry it is managed by FSF;

linked SourceForge Project of the Month award won in September 2012 with a brief interview from SourceForge staff;

Gtani (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

linked Schneier on Security crediting PeaZip as Open Source file archiver supporting Blowfish and Twofish encryption algorithms - Schneier is the author of both algorithms and his own Schneier on Security is one of most authoritative sources for cryptography, encryption software, and security related topics Gtani (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked some articles (comparatives and reviews) written by professional tech writers on well established tech magazines over the years, those sources are purely meant to document the persistence and relevance of the software on specialized media, popular third party sources which are not connected with the project. Gtani (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linked a mention of PeaZip project on ReactOS official domain; added links to official FreeBSD packages, official OpenSUSE packages, and to a list of (mostly Linux) packages, all those packages are created and maintained by third party maintainers. Linked a third party project for porting PeaZip to ARM architecture.

Please let me know if the effort in providing links to independent, verifiable, and reputable sources is improving the quality of the page in order to fix some of the issues highlighted. Gtani (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more authoritative third party links, either citing PeaZip or verifying the content of some paragraphs. Gtani (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've loaded it up with trivial mentions, which has created citation overkill rather than a clear demonstration of notabilty. This sort of thing is why the Wikipedia community really doesn't like conflicted editors to be editing the articles about themselves or their creations. - MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback and the assistance. I'm not very familiar with editing Wikipedia and I'm making practice in real time following the guidelines you suggests. I've removed the probably most redundant links, mostly reviews, to avoid citation bombing issue you mentioned. I've let some short mentions (e.g. from 7-Zip, Schneier, Collet, Mahoney) due the fact comes from authorities in the field acknowledging a specific feature, so for those notes being succinct is functional to their intended scope. It was my bad to let unchecked the initial sources for so many years, resulting in many dead links and reflecting the poor understandings of Wiki I had back then, so I'm only trying to clean the clutter and let to the community a better page to start with. Gtani (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that could contribute to establishing notability

[edit]
  • Jacobi, Jon L. (2012-01-17). "Zip and Unzip Many Kinds of Files for Free With PeaZip". PC World. Archived from the original on 2020-10-30. Retrieved 2021-01-18.

These are just what I found via a cursory Internet search, and it's ignoring plenty of trivial mentions (of which there are a litany of scholarly ones). It appears to have a non-trivial mention here in the 2011 Proceedings of the 34th International Convention MIPRO, but I can't tell as I don't have access. At any rate, this software seems to pretty clearly pass notability guidelines in my view, so I'm removing the notability tag, but obviously still leaving the COI tags. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PeaZip&oldid=1204193712"