Talk:Comparison of Usenet newsreaders

message: Hi guys, I am the original author of this comparison and am wondering just what sources should be cited?
I based this comparison on similar articles such as Comparison of P2P applications and Comparison of IRC clients
All software information is verifiable on the site of the program in question. --Fittysix 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: I've made this to be similar to the format used with other mediums where a comparison seems to be favored over a simple list. --Fittysix 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eventual replacement for [[List of news clients]] 

message: Columns to add:
yENC support, Ability to post articles y/n, uploading capability y/n
:I agree. Here are some more ideas:
* Kill file
* Offline mode
* Multiple servers
* Additional protocol support
* GNKSA
* NEWNEWS
* Unusenet features (this is not strictly necessary for using Unusenet though)
--Zzo38 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  don't forget about UTF-8 - the still famous Forte Agent still lacks its support. --Traut (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  More fields 

message: The fields seem to be mostly about the use for downloading binaries over usenet. Maybe the list should consider traditional Usenet a bit more. A second table could be made for that. Possible fields would be "killfiling", "scoring" (or generally "filtering"), "newsrc syncronization", "offline reading" and so on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.192.47.17 (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, maybe a second table might help, and yes I agree that you should be able to support text-based Usenet (and other NNTP) stuff too. (I don't use the binary newsgroups myself; I use only the text newsgroups.) --Zzo38 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on binaries? 

message: Why have so many programs been removed? Some, including URD, HAD Wikipedia articles that were deleted. This list is meant to compare ALL available usenet newsreaders, not just the ones whose Wikipedia entries haven't been deleted yet.
I propose they be added back in, but without linking them. In the mean time, I can start work on articles for the readers that don't already have them.
If others are in agreement, I'll add them back manually, as opposed to simply rolling back edits so newer changes don't get written over.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.37.51 (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, then write the articles and I will bring back the infos if they have already existed! in other comparisons are the same politics! I'm a regular contributor of the comparisons of layout engines, irc clients, bittorrent clinets, web browsers, internet suites, and many more (i had to look up if you are interested): if in these categories are allowed to publish other clients, than there is the big problem that nobody can easy check if that is not spam. on the other hand why not write an article? if the client is good / have many users than there will be a fanbase who will write an article (it doesn't matter if it is a sub) mabdul 0=* 11:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I am also in agreement, whether or not they have Wikipedia articles. Ones that don't can omit the link but still list the other information in the table, and if a Wikipedia article is later written then the link can be added. --Zzo38 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Newsreaders 

message: If there's any software that begs for a text-based user interface, it's this software!  Although I'm disappointed by the paucity of choices and lack of sophistication, I'd certainly like to see a page like this one, but devoted to TUI newsreaders alone, perhaps set up as a table showing information copied from this one. 4.234.36.32 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: after christmas i wanted to expand this comparison like i did on the expansion of the list of bittorrent clinets If you can do this before me, I'm happy; if youwill made this better than me, you're my god ;) [yeah, you're right that this comparion needs to be expanded!] mabdul 0=* 20:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

text: You can sort by a column. --Zzo38 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus on text-based

message: Is that NNTP-related?  If not, it's probably an off-topic feature. Tedickey (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at least as NNTP-related as "Automatic Par Support", "NZB Support" and "UnZip/UnRAR Support" if not more. The purpose of a Usenet client is to display Usenet content whether text or binary. A modern Usenet client should be able to display large binary content as fast as possible and preferably without requiring a multi-gigabyte download before the user can catch a first glimplse of the content. That's why this feature IMHO is very relevant  --edbund (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio/Video Streaming Support 

message: I see Newswatcher is missing from the list of readers. It's a Mac OS one. For more info, see:
http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/
In fact a large number of other Mac newsreaders are also missing from the list. Here's one list and summary someone made up:
http://www.macorchard.com/usenet/
Stephen 114.72.204.193 (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone would like to write a topic for the items on your list, and establish notability (for each).  Links by themselves don't serve much purpose TEDickey (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Newswatcher? 

message: Various features for slrn claimed to be supported via macros.  But after some searching I am unable to find the macros for say nzb support.  Are there any references about where these macros exist? 76.113.47.197 (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd try the mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slrn-user TEDickey (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  slrn 

message: Here is the comparison of NNTP client software, but you should have a comparison of NNTP server software, too. --Zzo38 (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of server software 

message: There are others. There is flnews (graphical, with FLTK), as well as bystand (command-line interface; as far as I can tell none of the other ones listed use a command-line interface, even though they are text-based). I may add this, and also other stuff not listed here yet (some of which are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia, but not on this specific page yet). --Zzo38 (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this is only for notable programs. That means, programs that have their own article on Wikipedia. The Banner talk 21:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Yep, you have to write the article first so the notability can be checked. The Banner talk 17:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Still you have to write the article first. The Banner talk 13:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some others not listed here 

message: This list article has no explicit criteria for inclusion, but for more than a decade, an edit war has been running about what to include or not.  Based on WP:SAL, specifically the section about companies and organizations, I propose adding the following to the article (but the project should await this discussion before doing so):
I have intentionally phrased this criteria in a general way, being explicit only once what the words "product" and "larger product" means.
Jbohmdk (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an often used criterion that programs in a comparison must prove their notability by having their own article. The Banner talk 15:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See for example the running RfC here: Talk:Comparison of EDA software#RfC: allowing programs without own article to be listed?. The Banner talk 16:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion