Talk:Seaside (software)

message: Please, how is this about " a person, group of people, band or club"? "Seaside smalltalk" on google gives 129,000 results. Please leave this article to people knowledgeable in the field. It was already listed on the disambiguation page and on the "list of web frameworks page". Perle 06:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

message: [Cross-posted from User talk:intgr#Seaside]
I agree that the article at Seaside is far from NPOV, but the nonnotability disclaimer certainly doesn't belong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.172.243 (talk) 
:Have you read the notability guideline? It says that articles must cite secondary sources to establish their notability. The Seaside (software) article does not.
:PS: Please add your comments to the end of talk pages, and please keep strictly article-related discussion on the article's talk page. -- intgr 13:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like there's more than enough external references to me. They are unrelated as far as I can tell, and therefore satisfy "secondary". I vote strong keep. Maury 16:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not being deleted so there is no vote; the "notability" tag is a reminder that the article does not establish its notability. External links are not considered sources if they only exist as links. -- intgr 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, sorry, could you explain that last bit? How would an external link not exist only as a link? Maury 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was, there is a difference between external links and sources. External links are not sources if none of the information in the article text is sourced from that link. Sources are typically presented under a "References" section, preferably using the WP:FOOT footnote format. Simply having external links to Wikipedia is discouraged, and external links alone don't establish notability. -- intgr 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you got to stick to the format.  I've emailed the Squeak mailing list requesting that someone knowledgeable about Seaside create a better article.  Not sure if it will be taken up.  Seaside is indeed notable and relevant, but unless someone steps in to say the right words and wave their hands in the right way I imagine this article will be deleted, especially now that it is tagged for speedy deletion as spam, a tag I disagree with.  Perhaps as a start for secondary sources, someone could cite one of the articles that a 3rd party has carried on Seaside? --Revaaron 17:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not tagged for speedy deletion; it has the  tag which is a cleanup template. It merely reminds that blatant advertisement should go with . Speedy-deleted articles don't usually last for 10 minutes. -- intgr 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: :Image:Seaside.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Seaside.jpg

message: Regarding the "Advertising" claim: In order to explain software it really is necessary to explain it's feadures and I guess that can look rather like advertising.  But if the Seaside article is advertising then surely so is    this one about Windows Vista.  And if that is *not* the case, what is it about the Vista page that makes it OK when the Seaside one is not? 81.86.102.62 17:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It addresses the reader directly (using "you") and then proceeds into a feature sell. Wikipedia is not a place for convincing people of the merits of software. I am sure the Vista article has its own problems, but that doesn't bear on this at all. Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —ptk✰fgs 17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert tag