Talk:Ekiga

Voip Politics
Does anybody know why the link to the windows binary has been nonfunctional for close on 6 months now? There's a wiki page with links, but the icon on the [ekiga.org] frontpage points to nothing. Who paid the author to remove the link? Who vandalised the page? Interesting questions to ponder... as it's virtually impossible to find a decent free voip application for Windows on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.157.188 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a bug on windows port of ekiga where in some cases ekiga uninstaller could remove files from the parent dorectory of ekiga. That was the only reason for removing the link.  3.2.7 release fixed that bug.  See http://git.gnome.org/browse/ekiga/plain/NEWS for ex.  The thread was http://www.mail-archive.com/ekiga-list@gnome.org/msg08457.html and there was another one I think.  Eugen


 * It seems that little has changed. I file Ekiga under the category of glossyware where they have a cool looking website that delivers an application of dubious functionality.  The setup wizard is very buggy and will take practice to overcome the defects.  The windows version doesn't seem to be able to interact with any SIP server.
 * I disagree with that glossyware classification. The donation link still functions perfectly ...


 * All calls are dropped just a second or so after they a placed and logged as "Call completed"


 * The linux version isn't much better. Sometimes it crashes before the window that the user interacts with is created.  About 1 out of about 5 tries with the echo test work.  Also claims that it fails because it's ports are being blocked when I have verified that is not the case.  While the ideals are cool, I honestly don't see where this package belongs in any installation.24.111.99.6 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability, sources templates
I'm going to remove the distracting boilerplate messages at the top of the article. There can be no reasonable doubt that this is a major piece of software for the Linux/GNOME world. If nothing else, 15 interwikis speak a clear enough language. Secondly, regarding the sources - it's common practice on Wikipedia to use the official sites of software projects as the primary reference. Mentions and reviews on other sites abound on the internet (just google), but I see no reason why we should single any of them out and put them in the article. Of course, further references would be nice to have, but they're by no means a must. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason those templates were added:
 * To address notability. It is a requirement for an article about a product or company to have these. If this product is as popular as you claim, then there should be no problem finding 2 or 3 third party sources that prove this. Until this is done, the notability template should remain.
 * Verifiability. Self references used as a primary source are not typically acceptable because a self published source can claim any fact that it wants. Since the claims made in this article are not likely to be challenged I can accept the removal of this template.
 * Please do not remove the remaining templates until the criteira set by policy have been met. -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 15:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think this is utter and complete nonsense. A fine example for a rigid application of rules without considering context. If it makes you happy to keep the template there, I'm not going to interfere. But that doesn't mean it makes any sense. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not nonsense, it makes perfect sense. If Wikipedia did not have these rules in place (rules that have been agreed upon by a consensus of editors) then we could have any product listed on this site regardless of it's popularity or usefulness This would obviously bloat Wikipedia with so much worthless information, it could turn into one of the other countless unmonitored open Wiki's currently available.
 * That being said, a third party references that prove it's notability should be easily found for a a product that is a major piece of software for the Linux/GNOME world. If you do not like the current policy, or believe that it could be improved, you can state your improvement on the policy's discussion page -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt we need rules and I'm certainly against bloating Wikipedia with people's pet programming projects. Having said that, I'm all for following the spirit of rules, not necessarily their letter. That's why I'm not going to waste my or other people's time discussing the rules. If you feel the warnings make any sense, go on guarding them. It's still ridiculous. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The notability template makes no sense at all. Hint, try googling Ekiga, you'll get 460,000 hits.88.195.119.17 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just added external links to the Ubuntu community documentation (a well-monitored and visited wiki) on Ekiga as well as a 2007 review of it from Linux.com. I also cited the fact that Ekiga comes default with the most recent ubuntu distributions to the community documentation. Considering Ubuntu's popularity and the credibility of Linux.com, I think these additional references should be enough to satisfy the notability guidelines and take down the tag. mcs (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I've taken down the warning, but probably ErnestVoice is going to put it back in his or her usual Pavlovian manner. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It took me all of 10 seconds to find a simple 3rd party article that can vouch for it's notability. Even though it is Wikipedia policy to have 'Significant Coverage' of a particular topic to claim notability, I figured this would at least be a good start. I've replaced the current reference of notability with a 3rd party one from a non-public content source. Also, the number of Google hits do not necessarily reflect it's notability, a Google search of "metal bar" returns over 700,000 hits. Does that mean there should be a Metal Bar article? Also, please do not assume to know what actions I will take. I am sure that this particular product is extremely popular and would easily pass the notability guidelines, but, as I stated before, verifiable and reliable sources to this fact are required. I try to help provide as much content on this site as possible, but everyone has to follow the rules to for Wikipedia to work. Products and companies have to have some notability or else Wikipedia would be completely overwhelmed with fly-by-night companies and startup projects. That is why I try my best to follow the policies as accepted by a consensus of other editors. -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, you've already proven beyond doubt you're a fetishist about the letter of the rules, don't bother to hammer it home!
 * You wrote: "It took me all of 10 seconds to find a simple 3rd party article that can vouch for it's notability." Oh, really? Then one might be compelled to wonder why you didn't insert that reference in the first place, instead of putting a boilerplate on top of the article and wasting everyone's time, including your own, by giving bookish lectures about its necessity? Even if there was no other reason against the rampant overuse of such warnings, it's obvious that they desensitise people to themselves. You could put some sort of warning in most articles round here with some justification - do you think this would encourage people to do anything about the (real or imagined) defects of the article? The opposite is true, it would result in boilerplate blindness.
 * The reason I placed the template is because I am not an expert or even familiar with this particular product. If I tagged the article it was to bring to the attention of other editors (that may be more familiar with it) so that they could find a better reference. The reference I found was hasty. I am sure there are better external links that follow the rules.-- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "a Google search of "metal bar" returns over 700,000 hits. Does that mean there should be a Metal Bar article?" Of course not. Unless, of course, we're not talking about a generic term like "metal bar", but about some notable thing that has "Metal Bar" as a proper name. With all due respect, your inability or unwillingness to see the difference between a random generic term and a proper name for a product speaks volumes.
 * My point was to illustrate that a Google search alone does not confirm notability. -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Also, please do not assume to know what actions I will take." Well, if your actions are so strictly determined by a rigid literal interpretation and application of rules as you say they are, it's kind of hard not to assume what actions you will take. OK, I rest my case. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As this has nothing to do with the improvement of the article and I will not continue to respond to personal attacks. Please keep the focus of this discussion on the article content. -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Answering down here to keep this from becoming unreadable.
 * You wrote: "The reason I placed the template is because I am not an expert" Fair enough, but if this is so I wonder how you managed " to find a simple 3rd party article that can vouch for it's notability" in "all of 10 seconds" ...
 * " My point was to illustrate that a Google search alone does not confirm notability." Well, I hate to repeat myself, but you're leaving me no choice. So once again, if a random, but common combination of words like "metal bar" has tens of thousands of Google hits, it certainly doesn't. If the name of a specific software has that many hits, it certainly does. Apart from that, nobody ever said that "a Google search alone" would vouch for this program's evidence. This was just an additional hint, in addition to all the circumstantial evidence you chose to ignore. The article clearly stated that Ekiga is the default VOIP client in Ubuntu, the most popular desktop Linux; this fact alone should establish its notability beyond any doubt, with no need for any additional references.
 * " I will not continue to respond to personal attacks ". Fortunately, everybody here can easily re-read our posts and decide for themselves if I committed any "personal attacks" against you. Besides, it was you who decided to instruct me as to what I should and shouldn't be doing. I think I'm entitled to reply to that, and I'd say I replied way more politely than you had any right to expect. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added some more sources to the article and wondered if it now has enough sources for the banner to be taken down stating that the article mostly relies on one source. It now has sources from over six different websites. --JayDez (talk) 08:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the banner for now, since it doens't seem to be needed any more. If you have a question we can discuss it. --JayDez (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Limitations, Features and Ad Hominem
This article needs a better features section, and perhaps a limitations section. I was reading the article for information, and it lacks even basic information on
 * Ekiga's interoperability with landlines and GSM
 * Availability or otherwise of encryption
 * Whether credit is necessary for some functions, and can be bought
 * Whether there is an answerphone function
 * Whether plugins or similar are supported

I'm aware that these questions would be answered in the official wiki, but most of them are basic information that should be mentioned in the article.

I have read the discussion, and from my perspective, I don't understand the reason for such ad hominem attacks as 'Thanks for your help. I've taken down the warning, but probably ErnestVoice is going to put it back in his or her usual Pavlovian manner.' and ...you've already proven beyond doubt you're a fetishist about the letter of the rules... For a very routine discussion of notability, I think this is very far from 'way more politely than you had any right to expect'. Centrepull (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea to answer at least those questions you have posed here in the main article. Does the wiki have most, if not all, of the answers? Even if it does, surely we can put them here and cite the wiki for the answers.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 10:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are going to reference from an Open Wiki site, please make sure that it has a sustainable history and a substantial number of editors as per WP:ELNO, #12 specifically. It would be better if references to non-public sources can be found since Wikis can generally be edited by anyone. Also, their contents can change rendering the reference invalid or inaccessible. -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 13:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume Centrepull was referring to the Ekiga Wiki, which is registration-only editing. Since it appears to be MediaWiki powered, the permalinked versions of pages can be used for referencing.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 17:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Diamond Worldwide Communication Service
Ekiga appears to allow users to make calls to regular phones and cell numbers worldwide, via Diamond Worldwide Communication Service? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Ekiga. 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/20090130043621/http://wiki.ekiga.org:80/index.php/About_Ekiga to http://wiki.ekiga.org/index.php/About_Ekiga
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228194214/http://wiki.ekiga.org:80/index.php/Features to http://wiki.ekiga.org/index.php/Features

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)