Talk:List of web testing tools

Relevant Tools
I would suggest, that tools like Ghost Inspector and FRET should be included in this list, since they are very relevant tools for this topic. Maybe articles should be created to prevent red links. DrJim (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Also Selenium should be either renamed to Selenium IDE or removed. Selenium itself is a framework but not a tool. The Selenium IDE as the browser plugin is a relevant tool but then has no scripting language since it is used by a GUI. DrJim (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. We don't currently list products without articles. Are you suggesting we open the list up to products that do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see WP:N) or do you just want those two tools added?
 * Selenium includes both WebDriver and IDE. See http://www.seleniumhq.org/. I don't believe a change is necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to open the list to products that do not meet the notability guidelines in order to be able to have a comprehensive list for this topic since there seem to be more tools (e.g. http://crossbrowsertesting.com or https://spoon.net/) out there that do not justify there own article but should be in this list. DrJim (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No; only products with their own articles should be included. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave an explanation, why I think that shouldn't be the case. Please give an explanation for your opinion. DrJim (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All entries should at least pass a basic notability test, and the best test of this is that they have their own articles. Otherwise the list could be cluttered up with trivia, unnotable tools and spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should meet a basic notability test, but the point you are making means that we just don't want to bother whether a new entry is spam or not and therefore creating an incomplete and irrelevant article. On the other hand I agree that it's probably to much work to validate every new entry. DrJim (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the notability test. It's not too much work to validate every new entry. It's something that I do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear: I was not talking about the notability test, when I said "basic notability test". I meant to test if every entry falls under point 3 in WP:CSC "verifiably a member of the group", because all the mentioned samples are "verifiably a members of the group". Also they would even meet the criteria under point 1: "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." DrJim (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am talking about WP:N. That's been the criteria for a long time. We would need consensus to change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to me DrJim is quite right... There are web testing tools that are not notable enough to have their own articles, but have significant value in a list of web testing tools, and fit WP:CSC point 3. Walter, when you say "That's been the criteria for a long time," do you mean the criteria for inclusion in the list of web testing tools (or for wikipedia in general, or ...)? Can you provide evidence for that statement? Huttarl (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This list and most testing lists. Unit testing tools is an exception to this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am chiming in on this a bit late, but the simple addition of non-notable tools to this would have greatly helped me in the last month at my job, and according to WP:N is an option that is up to the editors.
 * To be clear, I am not trying to have any and all tools included in the list, but perhaps some guidelines to non-notable tools and inclusion can be formed. This way we have both the notable tools, and perhaps up and coming tools that may become notable soon on the list, while screening out all the minor forks and no name tools on the internet. My suggestion would go for all automated testing tools, so perhaps a merged talk thread for all of them to form a consensus. 75.112.92.167 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Notability are the guidelines we use for determining if an article is notable, and so it has become shorthand for many lists: if it's sufficiently notable for an article, and there's a related list, it can be included. That seems to be the consensus. However, there are several lists and collections such as https://www.stickyminds.com/tools-guide In my job, I don't often need to decide to purchase or investigate a new tool, and I know not to rely on Wikipedia to supply that for me, but I will read about notable tools here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * On one hand, AFD suggests that one should try to include non notable topics, like in this case software, in with other more notable pages. On another hand Notability says that in a list only the list topic has to be notable, not any item in a list. However there is a third aspect that conflicts with both of these, repositories of links or directiories are one of the things Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This makes this a dubious grey area at best, and while I admit it may have been this way for some time, that doesn't mean that discussion can't be opened on the topic.
 * I'm not suggesting that the criteria for a list be opened to every item that exists. I'm suggesting we figure out a criteria that would include any item that a user would want to see on the list if they came here without knowing what was out there. Notable items of course, but perhaps some of the newer items that aren't notable but may be mentioned in another list could be added, while others that have shown no signs of becoming notable would eventually be removed. It's just an idea of mine, and could use some work, but this was what I was imagining. ChthonicOne (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Field explanation
Request legend for every table field. I don't understand what is recorder means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.142.169.244 (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)