Talk:PeaZip

message: 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)
thread_title: Unreferenced tag status

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weasel wording 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ZIP / JAR / WAR 

message: * 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
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)
thread_title:  Sources that could contribute to establishing notability