Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools 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

Cleanup Required

This page has grown out of proportions horizontally. I think the table needs to:

have its rows and columns switched;
have the tool rows sorted alphabetically;
be split by some criteria into several smaller tables.

Unfortunately, I lack the skills to do that. Anyone? Torrentss (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source is not a price, replace Open Source with freeware if the product is free. (Something can be open source and NOT free) --75.100.64.104 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Wikifan[reply]

If we're not careful this article will be marked for deletion:

It may be considered a link farm -- vendors need articles reliable sources, not external links.
All but one of the entries are notable -- they lack articles or reliable sources.
It looks like an advertisement -- "price" shouldn't be included, it should be "license details".

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

It's not hard to find notability for these software titles...

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Hm2k (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But HDTune isn't primarily a S.M.A.R.T. tool; it's a fine and popular HD performance tester. It does have generic numeric field display, but from what I can see, _very_ limited mfg-specific field decoding. (Of course, maybe it doesn't matter, since so many drives don't report valid data: Toshiba MK6025GAS lies about its Reallocated Sector Count) --Lexein (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Rows and Columns

Until someone finds or makes a tool to switch the rows and columns in this unfortunate table, we are just stuck.

Wish there was an article for smartmontools. -96.233.30.237 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally did it

OK, I finally switched the rows / columns and merged some of them (to reduce required horizontal space). Also, I added GSmartControl and some other minor stuff. Torrentss (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, this improved the page considerably! Mrmagmrmag (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Good work! However, I do recommend that you start creating stub articles for each software title, otherwise we will have to remove them due to a lack of notability. That would be a shame. --Hm2k (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that isn't exactly the case. The notability guideline states: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." See WP:NNC for more information on this.
Put simply, the notability guideline does not limit the content of articles, including Comparison or List articles. If the information in the article is otherwise accurate and verifiable then there is no problem with keeping it in the article even if a Comparison article has a red link where a standalone article might otherwise exist. In the case of Comparison of ... articles where we are just making simple feature and/or functionality comparisons of software, even a primary source is considered acceptable, see WP:SELFPUB.
Now, per WP:REDLINK, if it is highly unlikely a standalone article will ever be created at the red link, then simply unlinking the name is one option. A better option instead unlinking or having a lot of sub-stub articles is to create something like Glossary of S.M.A.R.T. tools and use subsection/anchor redirects for the red links. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries) and {{Anchor}}.
--Tothwolf (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, that doesn't help improve the article. Each entry should either have a link to an article or a reliable source to establish notability, otherwise it risks being removed. My advice is that article stubs should be created as this will help improve not only this article, but Wikipedia as a whole. I will now update the article to reflect what has been discussed here. --Hm2k (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT?
Again, we do not have to establish notability for content of an article; WP:NNC
A ref link to the software's site/documentation would work here (and removing the red links outright as you've now done is not what I recommended and is still not the best solution). What I mentioned above with regards to the notability guideline is also why I previously removed the {{Notability}} cleanup template as it just doesn't apply. The only case where {{Notability}} might be warranted in the case of a Comparison article might be where a parent article that covers the topic does not exist and the lead section of the Comparison article itself does not establish notability of the parent topic. In the case of this article, the parent subject article is S.M.A.R.T., which covers a highly notable topic.
For a very long, detailed discussion over just this sort of thing, see Talk:Comparison of BitTorrent clients#Notice to editors and several following sections.
--Tothwolf (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT??
WP:NNC appears to be a new addition, I'm not really familiar with it. Either way, entries must have a reliable source as a reference (or an article with references), these do not, without them, the entries are at risk of removal. --Hm2k (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:SOFIXIT. WP:SEP also applies here.
If you feel something in particular is controversial and needs an inline citation, then by all means add one. Lack of a citation does not indicate that the information is not verifiable, it usually just means no one has added one yet.
WP:NNC is certainly not new, it has been around for years and is worded in a very clear and concise manner. It has been clarified considerably over time so it is much more clear now than it used to be though.
--Tothwolf (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix it by removing the entries, but I've given forewarning before I do it. If there isn't an article it will be removed. Don't like it? You fix it. --Hm2k (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and if you do, I will revert and warn you as you've already been warned about this in the past.
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warn me of what? Unless you intend on improving this article, I'll be calling troll on this, and won't be engaging you any further. Thanks for playing. --Hm2k (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction of failure

Can someone please clarify what exactly the "Prediction of failure" column means? There are advanced tools like Hard Disk Sentinel which can predict the disk failure date by applying some statistical / mathematical models to SMART data variations over time. And then there's your standard built-in "HDD will fail during 24h" warning, and there's "this attribute looks bad, better do a backup" warning. So, which one is it? Torrentss (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the "Prediction of failure" column because there is no clear definition of what that means or which methods the tools use. Essentially, any SMART tool will have the standard built-in "FAILING" warning, so instead of having "yes" in all cells, it's better to just remove it until the meaning of the column is clearly defined.Torrentss (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More S.M.A.R.T. tools

Here are three S.M.A.R.T. tools for Linux that may be worthy of inclusion: CrystalDiskInfo, GSmartControl and munin. Nh5h (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GSmartControl has been there for a while now. CrystalDiskInfo is certainly not a Linux program, but feel free to add it. Munin seems to be an SNMP monitoring system which has a plugin for smartmontools. I don't think we should add every monitoring system which happens to access SMART data through smartmontools - there will be too many of them, and, strictly speaking, they are not SMART tools.Torrentss (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6Jan2010: Hey, what happened to all the software applications that were listed? There were a dozen or more last time I looked; and have been referring loads of people to this wiki... Will someone please restore the ones that went missing?

Also, can we add something (line item/heading/subheading/whatever) that mentions that SMART data can also be accessed via plugins (Munin via SMTP)? It would be helpful since people coming to this page are looking for a tool that *shows or interprets* raw smart data (unlike drive manufacturer software such as seatools that seem to hide raw SMART data and are only good to confirm 'yep, the drive is dead.' --Some of us are unplugging our drives on a schedule every ## months and plugging them into a PC running smartmon (or whatever) and it'd be nice to inform them that there is a better way.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.142.10 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Though new to the topic, I may be able to add some more info::

a) two more S.M.A.R.T. fools:

- Passmark DiskCheckup, found at : https://www.passmark.com/products/diskcheckup.htm

- HDDScan, found at: http://hddscan.com/

both are freeware for personal use.

b) two more useful references:

http://www.howtogeek.com/134735/how-to-see-if-your-hard-drive-is-dying/ - published 25jan13 [2015-01-25], this deals with using CrystalDiskInfo and also some simple tests using a Command Prompt window

http://www.7tutorials.com/how-test-health-your-hdd-drive - by Tudor Mandache on 5jun15 [2015-06-05] . This is a very lucid article which discusses how to use CrystalDiskInfo, HDScan and PassMarkDiskCheckup in some detail.

However, as I am new to Wikipedia editing, I merely put these forward for your more sagacious consideration.

ardj 17july2013 Ardj (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

smartmontools

can you justify the claim that it lacks notability? its the de facto standard tool used by Linux and Unix users. look at the results of this google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=s.m.a.r.t. linux ...if you want to use s.m.a.r.t. on *nix, you will almost certainly be pointed to smartmontools. Earthpigg (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, create an article for it. Redlink entries will be removed. --Hm2k (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i suppose i can do that. probably within the next week or so. 24.23.170.50 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists have worked hard to empty this article of useful content. (If you are looking for such info, you'll have to browse the history log, or look elsewhere.) When they manage to completely remove all mention of smartmontools, the most important SMART tool, they'll be able to sit back satisfied with another job well done.

The source code and documentation associated with smartmontools constitute the main body of public SMART info, since it is a non-standard standard rife with proprietary variations. The absence of a smartmontools article reflects poorly on WP.-96.237.69.64 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel so passionately about smartmontools, why not just create an article for it? That way it is less likely to be removed from this list and then you can sit back with the satisfaction of a job well done. --Hm2k (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Also see WP:WTAF. --Hm2k (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to read the top part that says it is a GUIDELINE and not a policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you read what guidelines are: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines...". Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have as I have also read this "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." That is a essay nothing more, you've been warned and blocked previously for removing content. Please consider stopping. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be misinformed, feel free to come have a chat and I'll tell you all about it. However, here you should comment on content, not on the contributor (Make sure to read the top part that says it is a POLICY). --Hm2k (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am commenting on your content work. It has netted you blocks in the past for the same behaviors. What in that is misinformed? WP:WTAF says it is not a policy. Again you H2mk do not WP:OWN this article and redlinks do have their uses here.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple. Just stick to the Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --Hm2k (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've been telling you that for months and you won't adhere, if it's that simple do it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? I didn't realise you represented other editors, care to explain? --Hm2k (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selective memory problems? I think just about everyone here told you your interpatation of policy was incorrect, in this instance both in list notability and what actually constitutes a personal attack [[1]]. Or maybe this block for disruptive editing [[2]] which coincedently had you removing redlinks despite being asked by myself and a admin to stop as it constitutes content removal. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, comment on content, not on the contributor. --Hm2k (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am at length at ANI Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More SMART tools

Confused? Many SMART tools were deleted from the list because of a misguided misapplication of the notability policy. (Lack of an article or evidence of notability do not imply lack of notability. (That is circular reasoning.) They can certainly support an existing NN claim for another reason. A far more complete list of notable SMART tools can be found in this version of the article. --Elvey (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elvey! Please contact me, I want to understand your post , but I am not "so good" in english. I am interested, want to find out, what was the CAUSE of removing my favourite: HD SENTINEL from the list.

my email: martin5 "at" freemail.hu .. thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcompwatt (talk • contribs) 09:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Also make sure you apply WP:WTAF. --Hm2k (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure to follow instructions from an editor I don't agree with to apply an essay I don't agree with. Especially one who makes vague threats to call someone he disagrees with a troll. Not.--Elvey (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just stick with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Create an article; or supply a notable reference. If you're unsure; request a WP:3O or WP:RFC. Don't come here trying to cause trouble. Also, I will be removing the tag from the article again until you follow the proper paths for dispute resolution. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming there's no dispute is bad faith. Stop it. You should follow the proper path for dispute resolution; that is, don't revert claiming there's no dispute, and don't ignore my arguments at the top of this thread and simply revert. I'm not unsure as to policy regarding removal of undisputed relevant content; I am sure you misunderstand it. If you're unsure; request a WP:3O or WP:RFC. --Elvey (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no open dispute. Also, I have reported your disruption to ANI. --Hm2k (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your process wankery notwithstanding, Elvey is eminently right. Smartmontools is notable enough to include in an article like this, whether it qualifies for a separate article or not, per WP:NNC, and I think it even qualifies for the latter. Looky here [3] [4], and [5] turns [6] [7], etc. A reference is sufficient to add it to this article. It does not need a separate article first. Pcap ping 01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT, I still highly recommend following WP:WTAF. PS. please avoid personal attacks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reference showing that these tools are actually notable enough for inclusion here? Not blog posts, and not sourceforge pages. Linking their official pages only shows that they have a website. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably take a look at WP:LISTS. --Hm2k (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sourced article and seems to have a purpose. Formatted as is there really isno problem with this list IMOP. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem other than the obvious (directory, linkfarm and novel synthesis of primary sources). Guy (Help!) 23:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would the original poster kindly suggest a resolution? --Hm2k (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please revert this or this to make it have the entries of [this version of the article this]!--Elvey (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that instead you just provide notability for the entry or write the article first as per the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content isn't subject to WP:N; and that's not a matter of an essay, but stated in N's lead section. A software title's official website constitutes a primary source, which is sufficient for content inclusion. Blogs, however, are not -- unless they are actually the only official site for the software title. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having said which, Wikipedia is not a directory or a link farm, so it is normal practice to apply at least some editorial judgment and not include, say, SourceForge projects with one developer and no evidence of notability, market presence or significance. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But the standard to which Hm2k demands list items be held is WP:N, which is a fallacy. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, on the other hand it used to be standard practice to include in lists only those products which have, or are likely to have in short order, articles. Many "comparison of..." article fail the basic list guidelines by including products which have zero provable market impact and being drawn directly from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess if we ever go back in time that's something to think about :) I'm pretty sure current practice (and policy) is all we need to worry about. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The line about WP:N not directly limiting the content of articles is trotted out all the time, but WP:LSC (which is a better fit for this type of article) still suggests that we should have some inclusion criterion. Given that several of the listed tools have articles it is not improper to suggest that the criterion chosen should be "every candidate for inclusion should have an article". It's also the criterion which results in the best article quality. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these deletions do have coverage in multiple languages, consider [[8]] or this [[9]]. I'm not a expert in Smart but when I can get things to come back on Google news I tend to think it's notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion I suggested was that the instances had articles, not that they were notable. Being notable is a prerequisite for having an article, of course, so this works out quite neatly. But then we're back to WTAF: if these programs are notable, they should have articles. It really isn't that hard to write a fairly well-referenced stub for a software program if one puts one's mind to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why redlinks are great. It indicates a organized way for somoene who is a expert with Smart to write the articles. I write more state park articles and Register articles myself and in both subjects redlinks have been vital to me writing them. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not opposed to a temporary moratorium on removing entries which are redlinked, on those grounds. However, some of the entries in question have been waiting for articles for over a year. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the list is occasionally pruned of entries which have failed to attract articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For someone coming from the german language WP (which has different guidelines in many cases) this discussion reads quite strange. Never have I encountered editors removing not just wikilinks but actual list entries based on a misinterpretation of an often opposed very weak essay camouflaged (here) as guideline or solely on the argument "no one cared to write an article for over a year". Maybe I was just lucky? WP:LSC may be applied but certainly not with the criterion that Cunningham suggests. --Ettuquoque (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palimpsest

Palimpsest supports USB, PATA, and SATA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.208.80 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lavalys Everest

does support reading of smart data too, at least the newer versions. --Echosmoke (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CrystalDiskInfo

The SMART alerts this program generates cannot be customized very much by the user (setting threshold values for various parameters as desired). Is there a comparison guide for all SMART tools that allows finding SMART monitors that can generate very customized alerts?-96.233.20.116 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disk Utility

Disk Utility CAN show SMART Attributes. You click on a disk and then hit "Info" 99.99.61.169 (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

To date, no clear inclusion criteria have been specified as recommended in WP:LIST, and many entries have been deleted just for not having articles, even though their claims are verifiable in independent reliable sources. The reason "not having an article" (meaning, apparently, not notable), is not alone a strong reason for exclusion of content. N is explicitly not to be used for exclusion for content from an existing article. So I added a hidden comment near the top:

INCLUSION CRITERIA:

Please add only entries with articles, or add inline citations of multiple independent reliable sources for verification of claims made.

This can be converted to an WP:Edit notice once final text has consensus. I hope this satisfies concerns. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

WP:NOTDIR clearly states that Wikipedia may only index and list its own contents. Notability also applies to articles only; it does not apply to single list entries. Otherwise, it is not a directory of any sort. If you wish to enforce rules that rival and override WP:NOT (a fundamental policy), I am afraid a talk page discussion is not enough. (You need village pump discussion and consensus.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcastic "Best regards" aren't polite or civil, so knock it off. Waving around non-applicable policies doesn't help. WP:NOTDIR doesn't say or imply "may only" in any way - to say it does is bluntly false. It just doesn't apply in the overbroad, anti-WP:V content, anti-WP:N-does-not-exclude-content way you're suggesting. Not only is this list not a list of "everything in the known universe" (quoting NOTDIR), I'm not trying to enforce anything beyond its intended scope, but you are. Show me the discussion leading up to your conclusions. --Lexein (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I could quote you from WP:NOTDIR but the force in your message suggests that you have already made up your mind. So, you should probably proceed down the chain of WP:DR for dispute resolution. But just for the record, I do quote: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists" does not mean that "a list of everything in the universe is not allowed"; it means no list is allowed unless it adheres to the purpose stated. The purpose stated is: "...In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." The page later clarifies: "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business" as an example of what's not allowed; that's exactly what this list is.

And my "best regards" wasn't sarcastic at all; that I disagree with you doesn't mean that I hate you. In fact, I still don't.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, DR says we stay here. You haven't proven your case, not with circular quotations of blahblah, misinterpreted. This is not a mere list of wikilinks. It is actually more like a comparison table, which makes it a hybrid, closer in type to an article. Oh, look, it's called "Comparison" right in the title. Oh, my. It enjoys the greater content freedoms of an article; if it doesn't, them delete the table, and winnow it down to the wikilinks. Your deletion of the inclusion criteria goes against logic and WP:Lists. Your improper logic pits WP:N and WP:V directly against WP:NOT. If you read the history of NOT (first essay, becoming a (surprise!) policy in 2005), you'll see that it's a hodgepodge of defensive measures against abuse. Worse, you see that abuse in the inclusion of cited, RS, relevant, non-controversial content, which is a logically poor position to take. Next, you interpret state as if it were a stricture, which is a fallacy. That WP does index its own content does not mean that's all it does, as you prefer. That NOTDIR hash, applied to cited content, are void in the face of N and V if they make no mention of verifiability, sources, or relevance. Relevant reliably-sourced content permitted and encouraged by several policies cannot be handwaved away by a weaker one, even with dogged rewriting on the fly. Referring to this list as a directory is disingenuous. The directories referred to in WP:NOTDIR are far more general than this, and they include further identifying information like location or phone numbers, hence the repeated mention of those characteristics. This is most assuredly not a directory. This is a tightly specific comparison of software with a specific function, for which all content must be verifiable. You can't end-run other policies by a misapplication of NOTDIR. By the way, I approve of the deletions of uncited entries, but I most emphatically do not agree with the deletion of cited-by-RS content, which is discussed at length in reliable sources. If you're uncomfortable with the title "List", we'll just move it to "Comparison". Oh, wait, it already is. When a (in this case, badly written, and too-easy-to-misapply) policy is standing in the way of writing a decent article, or in this case, a comparison, ignore it. Let's. --Lexein (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I just finished reading your message and before I say anything, there are two things you need to clarify:

Is it an article or a stand-alone list? It can be both, but then it must satisfy the inclusion criteria for both; if I say "it is overwhelming", that'd be a huge understatement. Personally, I think it is a list. I never made the mistake of thinking the only list is a bulleted or numbered list. Tables are, most of the times, lists; comparison tables are always lists.
Do you want to abide by the policies or do you want to ignore them? Make no mistake, I have heard the sentence "writing a decent article" so much that I have no faith in it; if one hundredth of them were true, Wikipedia would have now been full of featured articles. So, I won't hold any value in it unless I see signs of it being true.

That said, yes, arguments like "but this page is not a list of everything in the universe" in response to "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists" are so childish that I don't even give them the pleasure of handwaving them. And the fact that WP:NOT was once an essay doesn't make me think any less of it, let alone violate it; it is now a fundamental policy, so its original writer has my highest respects for writing such a popular thing. It says we are not a directory and that means a hybrid of directory is not allowed either.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trying not to repeat myself, since you ignored my key points. Your ad hominem abuse won't fly either. I meant, and you know this, that this list/comparison table has a well defined limited range of acceptable content - bluelinked or multi-RS-cited - it is not indiscriminate, or everything. Nice try misinterpreting me, and then attacking. And as long as respect is being handed out, it must be given to the actual, general definition of "directory", which this definitively isn't. Nobody uses that word to describe highly focused lists, or comparison tables. Go ahead: print it out and show it to people, without the title. Ask them neutrally: is it a directory or a list or a comparison? Nobody will seriously regard it as a directory. Don't say they will; they won't. Trying to shoehorn it into that definition won't make it so. Small, concise, well-limited lists do not need to be limited to having only existing articles. Sorry you can't see it. Your position leans hard on abusing N (must have article) to force content out of this comparison, and that's plain wrong. If you look at the day NOT became policy, that weird false (incomplete) language you're fond of flogging wasn't there, and it doesn't belong there now, either. The fact, missing from the current NOTDIR lead sentence, is "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject, and which also include reliably sourced items in the list topic." That's the ongoing literal truth of the state of Wikipedia lists, as is currently implemented, which abide by the totality of intention of N, yet which you reject. RS are RS - facts supported by independent RS which are relevant to the article or list or comparison, are, bluntly, allowed, like it or not. I know the intention of NOTDIR is to prevent abuse, but what I'm supporting in this edit squarely isn't. --Lexein (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this listed at WP:3O, but am not "taking" it as a Third Opinion Wikipedian and am leaving it listed there because I seem to recall having had some prior interaction with both of you at one time or another and one (or both) of you may not consider me to be a fully-neutral party. Having said that, I'm not at all sure what it is exactly that's in dispute here. Is it:

The contents of the proposed selection criteria?
The need for the selection criteria?
Whether or not this is a stand-alone list to which WP:LSC applies?
Whether it is a list which might violate NOTDIR?
All of the above or none of the above?

Even if I don't give you an opinion, clarification of just what the issue is would help. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifying questions. I've numbered them, I hope you don't mind. It started with the addition of "Acronis Drive Monitor"[10] to the table by another editor, sans citation. This was deleted[11] for lack of "article on Wikipedia". Then I reverted and added 2 sources and the inclusion criteria[12].

Your #5 is "all", so here, point by point:

I don't know what the issue was with my inclusion criteria (IC) (above), they are called for in WP:LIST where clarification is required. When I added the criterion to the article in hidden text, for other editors to see, my proposal was deleted with edit summary "(Whoa! Somebody is inventing rules that rival WP:NOT, a fundamental policy. Sorry, no article, no listing. That's WP:NOT.)".
I think there is a need, where there is a chance of misunderstanding. These criteria help lists (and comparisons) avoid becoming indiscriminate. See WP:LIST#Lead section or paragraph and WP:LIST#Lead sections in stand-alone lists. Ok, so I put it in a hidden comment, for other editors, rather than in a lead paragraph. Others may feel that the title of the article is a sufficient criterion. I've helped create and refine inclusion criteria for Comparison of IRC clients (enforcing RS sourcing right there in the lead sentence), List of animals with fraudulent diplomas (lead paragraph establishing criteria), and List of common misconceptions (lead paragraph and WP:edit notice listing four criteria, to address issues at the most recent AfD).
It's a list with additional detail: a comparison. I strongly feel that the fact that it's not a mere list of wikilinks, that it has content, that the normal rules of N and V apply. First: all content must be verifiable (bluelinked article or inline citations). Second: per N, notability is not required for individual entries in a list. So this particular list, by editorial discretion, is a combination of WP:CSC#1 and WP:CSC#2, with some items notable enough for articles(CSC#1), and some items not notable enough for articles, but supported by multiple RS(CSC#2).
This list does not "violate" WP:NOTDIR, because
- The lead sentences of NOTDIR are worded as descriptive, not prescriptive. If interpreted as policy, NOTDIR wipes out WP:CSC#2 entirely. I do not believe those sentences are worded to be interpreted as the core policy, only as preface and recommendation (not demand), for the purpose of assisting in avoiding totally indiscriminate lists. This is quite obviously not indiscriminate, though it is dynamic.
- I believe these sentences are flawed, because they do not reference the actual widespread community consensus practice: CSC#2.
- Further, I do not believe this list "violates" as a directory ("Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business"), as I've explained above, because nobody would view this as a "directory" (printed out without title) if asked "List, directory, or comparison?".

--Lexein (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also invited as a reviewer but I'm not here to support either of the sides. But User:Lexin has attitude problem and a lot of it; he is talking bullshit and shiploads of it. Dude, if you are high, don't contribute. If don't take WP:CIVIL seriously, you have no rights here, be it right to edit, right to revert, right to discuss, or even right to read Wikipedia. Never in my life have I seen such a disruptive editor whose 99% of discussion is personal attack and the remaining 1% is too soaked in rudeness to be distinguishable. Fleet Command (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False and WP:UNCIVIL on its face. "Talking bullshit", "if you are high", "99% of discussion is personal attack", "soaked in rudeness" - all false and insulting. I was the one attacked. Also, leave User:Lexin alone: not involved here, and not an active editor. Since you're uncivil, I won't bother responding to anything else in your message. --Lexein (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FleetCommand

Actually, I invited you and the other three here to comment on edit, not impeach an editor. The latter is WP:NPA. The former, however is Wikipedia:Canvassing § Appropriate notification: "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: ... Editors known for expertise in the field".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you two would genuinely like to solve the problem, a mediated discussion, like a DRN, is the way to go. But then, both of you must put aside incivility and fairly and without bias, treat eachother's points of view. I am neither suggesting nor denying whether incivility is present in both participants. I am saying it must not be seen. At best, you should request a neutral party to compose the text of dispute resolution request, after having taken a ton of chill pill. Fleet Command (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to quote where I was actually uncivil, to have any traction with that. Also, you're going to have to control access to your computer a bit better - it seems like somebody else was on your machine at 18:23 (see above). I'm not claiming utter mellow calm, but I'm unhappy dealing with somebody WP:OWNing, and misusing policy by misinterpreting it, and then canvassing four people [13][14][15][16] with the non-neutral "I could use a review", right before filing WP:3O. I think my position is pretty sound, and my points are clear, really: one can't misinterpret NOT to invalidate N and V, one can't call an article what it isn't (directory), one can't claim NOT says what it doesn't, and one can't ignore the flaws in a written policy which needs some text fine tuning. --Lexein (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

About the invitation part, yes, that's pretty much what I did. Only why exactly do you think what I did is wrong? In the meantime, if you don't like it, I'll cancel the invitations and call in an RFC.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's just all over the place, deleting the 3O request with the false edit summary "(We have 3O)". Our potential 3O editor hasn't actually taken it, if you read the text above. When they take it, they'll remove the request. So let the process you started proceed. Otherwise it looks like forum shopping, and you wouldn't have meant to do that. --Lexein (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Must every item listed in this comparison article have a Wikipedia article?

The discussion and policies do not absolutely require all entries in the table to have independent Wikipedia articles. A topic-specific notability criterion for "good enough for inclusion here, if not for an independent article" consensus for either OS use or independent reliable sources seems appropriate per the discussion, but may be changed by consensus of editors here. Editors are requested to use caution and not insert questionably notable software in the list; sources should be provided for any software which does not have an article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi.

There is a discussion about the inclusion criteria for the items of the associated article. It is a comparison of software article. The main editors involved dispute are User:Codename Lisa (the editor writing this) and User:Lexein (not to be confused with Lexin). Currently, there is no consensus between us except that there is an inclusion threshold.

User:Lexein's opinion is, to quote directly:

Please add only entries with articles, or add inline citations of multiple independent reliable sources for verification of claims made.

This list does not "violate" WP:NOTDIR, because
The lead sentences of NOTDIR are worded as descriptive, not prescriptive. If interpreted as policy, NOTDIR wipes out WP:CSC#2 entirely. I do not believe those sentences are worded to be interpreted as the core policy, only as preface and recommendation (not demand), for the purpose of assisting in avoiding totally indiscriminate lists. This is quite obviously not indiscriminate, though it is dynamic.

I believe these sentences are flawed, because they do not reference the actual widespread community consensus practice: CSC#2.

Further, I do not believe this list "violates" as a directory ("Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business"), as I've explained above, because nobody would view this as a "directory" (printed out without title) if asked "List, directory, or comparison?".

User:Codename Lisa's opinion is:

Every item must have an associated Wikipedia article because:

What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOTDIR) allows Wikipedia to index and organizes its own contents however it sees fit (therefore, items with article are allowed) but says Wikipedia is not a directory, a comparison shopping website, sales catalog or lists without contextual backings similar to those listed in Open Directory Project or Alternative outlets (therefore, items without an article are not allowed.)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a fundamental policy that takes precedence any other policy, guideline or essay. In reading of every other policy, guideline or essay, this antecedent should not be denied.
WP:NOTDIR does not wipes out WP:CSC#2. It surely restricts it but does not wipe it out. See examples given in WP:CSC. (What if it did? It doesn't, but what if? Well, WP:NOT is fundamental policy and CSC is just a guideline. It is CSC that should adjust itself to WP:NOT.)

Comparative statements still need a reliable source.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick links:

User:Lexein's opening comment

I want 3O to complete before this RFC starts. Codename Lisa's steps of canvassing four editors, then starting 3O, then after a 3O editor inquires but doesn't yet take the 3O request, then deleting the 3O request, then starting an RFC, seems disruptive to ongoing discussion, forum shopping, and process jumping. If this RFC is really starting, I'll put in my opening statement. I've asked at WP:ANI#Process jumping, forum shopping. --Lexein (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

According to Wikipedia policy, must every item listed in this comparison article have a Wikipedia article?

Survey format:

* '''Support'''/'''Oppose''' Reason. ~~~~

Discussion

Comment It seems to me that even before the points at issue so far presented are considered, one should think about the function of this "article" table, and so far I think this has been overlooked. It is quite possible in principle for a supplementary article of this type to be of value in combination with a main article that deals with a structure of principles and practical considerations. Such a table of practical examples need not be seen as a directory or spamming, any more than a table of elements and their attributes would be, in discussing chalcogens or transition elements for example. However, in applying that principle to this material, it is not clear that the examples in this form are appropriate; more references to the relevance to points in the main article and vice versa seem to me to be desirable to establish that. Furthermore, the need for such relevance in this case is heightened by the fact that the maintenance of such a table is not the same as the maintenance of something more stable than a list of commercial products in the IT field. In the IT market exceptional volatility is a given. No one can undertake to keep such a list up to date and relevant, and even if some could, they could not promise it in perpetuity. Accordingly, without much reference to the core of the dispute, I am deeply uncomfortable with the table as an article. JonRichfield (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools is necessarily any less stable, or any less maintainable, than a similarly criteria-limited comparison of commercial products in the IT field. If you had linked any examples, that would be easier to assess. Tiny companies can be more or less volatile than big companies. Acronis is, I would think, fairly stable. This article is a sensible (and linked) supplement to S.M.A.R.T.. The existence of S.M.A.R.T. tools as a class is supported in multiple reliable sources. See my note below about older software. As for being encyclopedic for the future, this is a dynamic list, which is not only a permitted class of list, but one supported by repeated LfD "keep" results. --Lexein (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This battle is as old as the dinosaur Jimbo used to ride, back in the day. :-) You can see the huge talkpage battle in 2010, with Equazcion taking the inclusionist stance (editorial judgment should permit redlinked tools that only have a link to their primary source) and with Hm2k taking the deletionist stance (only tools that have three reliable sources providing in-depth coverage specifically about that tool are worthy of inclusion). So, for instance, the only reason there *is* a smartmontools entry now, is because it used to be a redlink, and because that is ubiquitous on Linux/BSD/etc, eventually somebody cobbled together a WP:PERMASTUB for the thing.

Wikipedia has some very good lists.[17] Wikipedia also has some *seemingly* good lists which actually omit half of the top-twenty-five packages in the field, and include quite a few LINKFARM entries from the top-two-hundred packages, maintained by devoted editors.[18] Personally, I think an article on SMART utils is considerably less 'popular' than carts; that influences my thinking. They have an important function, of course; sysadmins need them, especially when hundreds or thousands of machines are involved. There are prolly some research-papers (whether academic or commercial-R&D-whitepapers) that cover cluster-management and supercomputing, which mention the technology. But this comparison is never going to get the level of attention that the RDBMS one enjoys, let alone the attention browsers and mediaplayers and OSes are subjected to.

So, at the end of the day, we have to balance our decision about list-entry-inclusion-and-exclusion-criteria, with the very first thing that JonRichfield brought up: what is the function of this article? To me, the function of this article is to provide a list of *useful* software, for the sysadmin-and-programmer-readership that is going to be coming here. Not as the endpoint (WP:NOTDIR), but as a starting-point: if I need to research SMART utils, when I come here I want 90% of the usual suspects for my OS mentioned. That function-definition makes me lean towards Equazcion's stance. However, since this listing will never be as popular as comparison-of-browsers, we also need to err a bit more on the side of deletionism... there may not be enough watchlists to prevent WP:SPA, especially if we rely on primary sources. Initially, I therefore lean to setting the criteria as lower than WP:N aka bluelink-required, but higher than primary sources, and probably a bit higher than WP:NOTEWORTHY. If forced to decide today, I would vote for this:

either: minimum of two WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions in third-party Reliable Sources (reviews or sysadmin interviews or similar) from two different years (i.e. min ~12 months apart), not just a quick burst of coverage then nada.
or: tool installed by default -- as opposed to optionally downloadable -- on any of these OSes, verifiable in a primary source such as the OS's homepage or helpdocs, again demanding two different years (i.e. min ~12 months apart) of being installed-by-default to qualify.

Methinks this would give us quite a few more tools which 'count' as worthy of being in the comparison, than the current list of eight. However, I'm not positive about this; maybe there are simply not that many different tools out there! Can somebody familiar with the topic-matter please give me an idea of how many tools will be in the list next month, if we settle on using Lexien's proposed rule, how many if we use Lisa's proposed rule, how many if we use my proposed double-noteworthy rule, how many if we use Equazcion's anything-including-primary-sources rule? That should help guide our decision. Hope this helps, sorry about the length. If I don't respond promptly, feel free to ping my talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm an inclusionist who insists on strong sourcing, and accepts domain-specific-expertise reliable sourcing, per WP:RS. After reading the above, my suggested inclusion criteria would now be these two (combined):

Default or installable tools with S.M.A.R.T. access and diagnosis as the primary function, not as an incidental part of primarily archiving, backup, N.A.S., drive qualification/burnin/lifetesting, etc., tools. Tools which primarily do other things, and happen to include S.M.A.R.T. would go in some other list, or already are in another list.
(and) Citations of discussion in two or more independent notable RS (review, admin analysis, or intro/usage in a notable publication) several months apart (to avoid the risk of articles driven by press-releases). Example: my two citations for the Acronis Drive Monitor item. That's Acronis, by the way.

I expect five or ten such tools would be able to be added to this list over time under these restrictions. Tools which age out and can no longer be purchased or downloaded can be moved to a second table: "Older S.M.A.R.T. tools", if there's one RS (primary or independent) confirming that change of status. So that would then be a minimum of three sources required to stay in the article over time. --Lexein (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not whether such procedures could be prescribed or recommended, nor even whether the product would be at once of use and a credit to WP or of general interest to users if so implemented and maintained. The operative elephant in the room is the question of who is to bell the cat and keep it happy and with a working bell. Such maintenance as you describe is not a minor task in the long term and the need for the maintenance does not go away after those who made the commitments have gone away and no one else could care less about the maintenance. Companies, whether big, small, or niche, tend to have an lively turnover in survival and in the nature of their products, and this is independent of the fact that Grandpa Moses' baccy shop might still be going strong after 13 years. Our commitment to encyclopaedic content will outlast any commitment you personally make or any of the companies make. Presently passionate commitments and reassurances are very touching of course, but ask any experienced IT manager what happens to them just a few years down the line. They fossilise and become expensive and unsigtly waste. But suit yourselves; I won't be around to snigger; enough of my own commitments to see to, unless another RFC rattles my cage... JonRichfield (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Yes, people die too, but their notability does not expire - the articles may switch to past tense, even as their notability extends far beyond their years. Encyclopedias incorporate a lot of history. S.M.A.R.T., and S.M.A.R.T. tools may disappear in the future, or be subsumed into a greater storage diagnostic standard, but the historical relevance of it, and the tools, and their citations in reliable sources, will persist. Maintenance of articles is a given. I sincerely doubt a massive amount of work will be required on this list. Thus, I think you overestimate the work required. --Lexein (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Actually, JonRichfield is not overestimating. The existing items in the — can I call it article? – are in such a state of disrepair right now. Smartmontools is the only item with adequate sources. Every other item is suffering from lack of source. We virtually know nothing about Disk Utility and its source is dead. This article needs over 40 hours of work already. (Sorry, I already need 6 additional hours every 24 hours as it is; can't fix it myself.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firtly, thank you Codename Lisa. I wish I had been well enough informed to point out the status of the article, but I was not and your remarks were most helpful.

Lexein, I agree with you about the value of out-of-date lists and similar materials. (The fact that people have been dead for decades or centuries is slightly different actually; you would have done better to cite old telephone directories, old railway timetables, old ads in the flyleaves of books etc.) The amount of historically valuable data in and about such materials is easy to underestimate. The problem is that until they are suitably collected and curated, such tables might be a valuable resource, just like any other garbage, but undigested they are not a valuable facility, just a clutter, an obstacle to historical reference rather than a tool. Furthermore, to maintain them in a useful form that the professional would respect and the run-of-the-mill user might in principle want is largely futile; if I wanted such information would the first thing that would spring to mind be to look in a dictionary or encyclopaedia? I think not! Non-IT folks wouldn't be interested, and IT folks would go to google or business directories where contemporary surviving vendors would keep things up to date or lose business and go under. I could imagine a suitable evaluation of such a market and professional field over a period of several years or several centuries being valuable and possibly even encyclopaedic, but WP would not be the place to publish such OR, though some valid articles might well cite such research. But WP certainly is NOT the place to dump all the out-of-date material plus a religiously maintained up-to-date appreciation of the current situation in such a field. JonRichfield (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm calling red herring, because nobody's dumping out-of-date material into Wikipedia. All encyclopedic information ages, some more than others. If you prefer not to maintain articles, nobody's insisting that you do. Editor interest drives article improvement - do you think it's your role to discourage editors from contributing? That's what userspace essays are for. Other editors enjoy maintaining, and persist in it. See WP:Wikignome and related role-related articles. I'm such a gnome. Finally, I think interest in technology is allowed to transcend one's job/career/profession, and that given the rate at which this article is read, and this one, people who use computers and want to know more about their hard disks are finding their way here, the rascals. --Lexein (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Look, our discussion is about the criteria of inclusion; and as much as I am ready to delete the ineligible item, I am also ready to make a stub or article for the eligible items, if that is indeed what needs to be done. (The general rule is: We're here to make an encyclopedia, not stop making it. So, discarding a part of what is eventually going to be made is unsanctioned.) So, this isn't a discussion to make. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you at least consider warning the reader (i.c. me) about the situation you now enforce? The warning by user Lexein is insufficient, as it does not explain the random nature of the enforced omissions. From his warning I gather that not every homebuilt solution can be included as is to be expected, but it fails to make clear that major contenders are missing based not on technical merit or userbase, but solely based on rules unexpected by the reader (I can't even find these rules in the documents you quoted). I now tend to agree that no professional in full command of his faculties should ever use Wikipedia (except maybe for looking up dead people or Pokémon). Please warn them. Thank you kindly. - Snaily (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add a warning? Probably not; see Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. On the other hand, did you mean stating the inclusion criteria? Well, inclusion criteria for lists are intended to help keep the list focused and discriminate. But to answer your question, yes, when finally agreed upon, inclusion criteria can be paraphrased at the top of the list or article, per WP:LIST, as a description for readers to see what they'll be seeing. The problem here? No consensus on the criteria. For a good example of reached consensus about on-policy local criteria, see List of common misconceptions, where four inclusion criteria must be met. Those particular criteria are explicitly spelled out at the top of Talk, and in a prominent WP:Editnotice (here) during editing, but paraphrased at the top of the article. I'm rather proud of that work. It put the article on track for staying discriminate, helped avoid deletion at AfD #3, focused discussion on objective goals to meet, and de-escalated drama. Note: in that example, notability was required per item topic because bold claims were being made. In contrast, in this list of S.M.A.R.T tools, the topic is already notable, and is the same topic for each item in the list, and the claims are unremarkable, and easily verified by cited sources. This seems obvious.
We solved it for a much larger article, but we can't seem to solve it for this smaller, even more discriminate topic. Why? Stubbornness, in my opinion. Sources are sources; for each claim, verifiability is required, but GNG notability is not required, as explicitly stated in WP:N, for individual items in Wikipedia articles. Notability is required for the topic of the article, not the individual claims. We can decide what goes in this list, using our intelligence and editorial discretion, in the service of building an encyclopedia article of service to readers, and abiding by the best intentions of our policies and guidelines. Seems not to be happening here, so we have a decimated article, of little use, solely due to deliberate pushing of one guideline over another, as if they're mutually exclusive. It's silliness, and it's unseemly behavior for long term editors to willingly trash RS verifiable content just to be WP:POINTy. --Lexein (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Inclusion criteria discussion

Per the above closure, I offer these local inclusion criteria for discussion. If/when consensus is achieved, the criteria can be posted in a box at the top of this Talk page, paraphrased at the top of the article, and placed in an WP:Editnotice. (Please mark changes with ~~strikethrough~~ and insert, or add substantially different proposals below, numbered.)

Inclusion criteria proposal 1: To be included in this list of S.M.A.R.T. tools, entries must meet the following two criteria:

A tool (installed with the OS or an installable tool) must have S.M.A.R.T. access and diagnosis as the primary function (not as merely part of primarily archiving, backup, N.A.S., drive qualification/burnin/lifetesting, etc., tools). A tool which primarily does other things should go in a different list, or may already be in another list.
The tool must either be notable enough for its own article, or the entry must cite discussion of the tool in two or more independent reliable sources (reviews, admin analysis, tutorial, demonstration, etc.) Dates of cited sources should indicate some persistence, by being several months apart to avoid pure press-release coverage. Example: the two independent cites for the "Acronis Drive Monitor" item.

Lead paragraph proposal 1: ~~Many~~ S.M.A.R.T. monitoring tools have been created to help users retrieve and analyze performance data from hard disk and SSD drives, and have been discussed in tech news sources.^[1]

--Lexein (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The first thing I noticed is "many"! It is weasel word. The article should not have any statement on the number of such tools without a source; be it an accurate numeric one (e.g. 83479 or 19) or a vague weasel word (e.g. "many", "numerous", "a handful").

About the rest, I'll think about it later.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why, hello there!

Struck "many", obviously, but a nudge is better than a browbeating, don't you think?

Yours eternally,

Lexein (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: Browbeating refers to such aggressive acts as kicking up a row in WP:ANI because of a 3O and an RFC. Wait, who did that again? Oh, it was you! Comparing what you do here, I miss User:Δ. Fleet Command (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(No, allow me: "browbeating" means piling on needless condescending reprimands, as was done over the silly word "many". If you two have grudges over my repeatedly asking to stop jerking process around, then going to ANI, well, just get over it. It's over. Let it go. Asking isn't, and asking at ANI isn't, browbeating.)

Back on topic, it's been five days since proposal 1. If "many" was the only problem, it's fixed. Next? --Lexein (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (update) --14:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a lot to say right now but are you ready to assume non-browbeating faith and hear them? Because I assure you, the last thing I want is to make you feel attacked.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add 'CrystalDiskInfo'

CrystalDiskInfo is another tool I found that would be a good addition to the comparison list Mckmckmt. I already tried adding the tool to the list with most of the info but Codename Lisa removed it for lack of Wikipedia article. Mckmckmt (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://private.peterlink.ru/tochinov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130807015435/http://www.aida64.com/product/aida64-business-edition/features to http://www.aida64.com/product/aida64-business-edition/features

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer tools

Hello. HDD manufacturers normally provide at least 1 tool to check disk status. For example: SeaGate' SeaTools, HGST' WinDFT, Western Digital' Data Lifeguard Diagnostic... Shouldn't they be included on that comparison too? They have S.M.A.R.T. capabilities...--MisterSanderson (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

add/remove HDD Sentinel (windows smart tool)

hi, i spent alot of time (as im new to Wikipedia editing) adding info (and finding cites) for HDD Sentinel , only to go to show it to someone today, and see that it was removed. Why was it removed? there is no software on this list that more directly is a disk SMART tool, than HDD sentinel. i have no interest in the app, i manage 100s of servers, and have had to certifies 1000s of hdds/ssds and hdd sent is my go to tool, after years of developing a solid, custom stress-testing method for new/used disk pre-deployment. so i simply wnated to help, add a tool that i know is critical (and is still updated btw). Ive read the inclusion info here, its def. fits #1 better than any tool i know of. #2, im sure there are links out there, but ppl are busy guys. lmk tks